Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gendmal And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:44012) on 15 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:44012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1372/2015
1. Gendmal S/o Shri Baggu, B/c Kalal,
2. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Gautam, B/c Kalal,
3. Manilal S/o Shri Gautam, B/c Kalal
All R/o Dhanera, PS Parsola, District Pratapgarh.
(Presently lodged in Distt. Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/12/2023
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
12.12.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.55/2013
by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the
petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhariyawad
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal
Case No.119/2008, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the present petitioners as under :
Offence U/s 332 IPC : One year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days' S.I.
[2023:RJ-JD:44012] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2015]
Offence U/s 353 IPC : Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three days' S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2008, complainant
Ramesh Chandra submitted a written report before Police Station
Parsola to the effect that on instructions of SHO, he along with
constable Manohar Singh went on beat duty at Dhanera, where he
received information regarding illicit liquor being sold by the
petitioner Gendmal. On receiving such information, the
complainant went to the premises of Gendmal for conducting
search, where the accused-petitioners gave beating to the
complainant. On this report, the police registered the case against
accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 332, 353 IPC and
started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the
case were framed against the accused petitioners, who denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.07.2012 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.
[2023:RJ-JD:44012] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2015]
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2015. Hence
this revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2008 and the petitioners have as
so far suffered a sentence of eight days, out of total sentence of
one year's S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the
offence under Sections 332, 353 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the
said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioners.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 2008 and the accused-petitioners have so far undergone a
period of eight days incarceration, out of total sentence of one
year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of
protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the
[2023:RJ-JD:44012] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1372/2015]
bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
332, 353 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the
period already undergone by them while increasing the fine
amount.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for
offence under Sections 332, 353 IPC, the sentence awarded to
them for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone. The fine amount for offence under Section 332
IPC is hereby enhanced from Rs.200 to Rs.1,000/- and for offence
under Section 353 IPC is hereby enhanced from Rs.100/- to
Rs.1,000/-. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioners shall undergo five days' S.I. The petitioners are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
150-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
